Tag Archives: possibilities

“Community is the fact that we work toward the same goal, that we accept our respective roles in order to reach it.

Values is the fact we trust each other.

And, culture?

Culture is as much about what we encourage as what we actually permit. That matters because most people don’t do what we tell them to. They do what we let them get away with.”

—-

Fredrick Backman

===============

“You don’t know what you can get away with until you try.”

—–

Colin Powell

=================

Well.

The relationship between secrets and culture and community is one which is fraught with contradictions, conflict and humanness.

I imagine this conflict is driven by the natural chafing between self-interest and community <I have called this community individualism & Enlightened Individualism in the past>.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We talk a lot about community and team and all of that good stuff. And we talk about it with good intentions. The problem is that true community demands some sacrifice.

Therein lies our big secrets.

On occasion we decide self-interest is more important than sacrifice.

Uhm.

This is a version of ‘what you can get away with.’

That phrase sounds horribly horrible. It suggests nefarious type behavior. But the truth of it is most of us see what we can get away with on some very personal day-to-day less-than-nefarious type stuff.

We cut some corners.

We maybe don’t tell people how we truly feel <or who we truly are>.

We steal some post-it notes.

These are our little secrets.

We may even have some bigger personal secrets that we decide are just not things we want to share <these are not nefarious … just personal>.

Regardless.

For many of us … our behavior arcs toward what we can get away with. That doesn’t mean it is completely unethical, or some abhorrent behavior, just that while norms set a ‘median’ standard guideline Life is constantly suggesting ‘but this one time you can get away with doing this.”

The problem resides with the friction between culture & community and self.

What I mean by that is the stronger & more powerful the cultural community norm is the bigger your secret becomes if you avoid the norms.

This secret takes on exponential size if you start believing that the norms that are good for you are good … and the ones that don’t match up with what you believe is your self-interest are bad.

You only accept the existence of the formal and informal cultural norm structure that constitutes accepted community construct … only as long as that suits your purposes.

Your big secret, therefore, doesn’t have to do with your own behavior but rather in your non-belief ,if not overall disdain> for the community norms.

This leads me to hate.

Why hate?

When you decide to see what you can get away with you have to mentally divide community into “we” and “they.” And in doing so you make ‘we’ good <which suggests what you can get away with is on the side of good> and you make ‘they’ bad.

This is a simplistic tactic for attempting to carry the burden of a big secret.

Hate is simple.

Hate can be an incredibly powerful empowering emotion.

Why?

In this scenario, using hate, the world becomes much easier to understand and less confusing, in the scheme of things, if you divide everything into friends & enemies, good & evil, right & wrong and a basic we & they.

This helps us because the world is strewn with conflict. Not just physical war but of ideas, thoughts, beliefs and attitudes. Cultures, communities and classes are bombarded with conflict after conflict. And maybe because of the sheer amount of conflict one of the first things we do is pick sides. We choose a side to stand on because … well … it is easier. It is easier than thinking or, even more difficult, trying to hold parts of two ideas which appear in conflict in our heads at the same time.

And once we have chosen a side we then go out and seek some information, or ‘facts’, to confirm not only what we believe but the side we have chosen – this permits us to maintain the status quo and chug along with Life as ‘normal.’

Oh.

The last thing we do is demonize, or dehumanize, the other side. We diminish them. Make them, their thoughts & ideas, lesser than.

……. making “they” smaller ……..

I would suggest this all just makes you smaller as a person <carrying around a big secret>.

Big secrets make small people … yeah … unfortunately all of us become smaller with a big secret.

And this smallness is compounded by the unfortunate fact that you become even smaller when ‘we’ are the people who others HAVE to keep big secrets from … because they believe, and know, we cannot handle them <or don’t believe in them>.

All secrets carry a weight to them.

===

“To agree to keep a secret is to assume a burden.”

—

Sam Harris

===

In fact … I could argue that all knowledge is a burden. It carries a weight of responsibility with regard to what you do with it … how you act because you have it … as well as how you think about you, and others, with it.

Having accepted knowledge you have made an agreement with it. I tend to believe we don’t think about this. We accept knowledge as … well … maybe like income earned – disposable income in fact. We worked for it, we earned it and it is now ours to spend as we choose.

But knowledge is actually more like freedom. It is an unalienable right but it is also a privilege … and therefore one assumes a responsibility to it.

Uhm.

And with responsibility comes burden. Which almost sounds odd in that something with ‘free’ in it also carries such a heavy burden.

Maybe I should just suggest that nothing really comes for free … everything has something attached to it.

Knowledge?

Responsibility … the burden of responsibility. And that is a weight you carry … one which can be as light or as heavy as you make it. But. It is a weight nonetheless. One which you learn to carry well or carry poorly.

Knowledge tests our ability … and our character … with regard to how well we can carry this weight. It tests how strong we are .. once again … in ability an character.

Having said that <and most likely having a number of people feeling a little unconfutable thinking about knowledge that way>.

Secrets are a completely different level of a knowledge burden.

And secrets are tricky.

Some are thrust upon you … unwanted but yet yours nonetheless.

Some are gifted you … carefully shared by someone who believes the weight it carries is too much for themselves … alone.

Some are just yours … built by you and carried by you.

But regardless of how you assume the responsibility of a secret … it is also knowledge. And therefore it also carries a burden … a responsibility … and a weight.

I don’t have the scale to weigh them but my guess is that a knowledge secret exponentially weighs more than a traditional knowledge.

I also don’t have any research but I also tend to believe, just like extra physical weight, as soon as we start feeling the extra weight of a secret … we seek to shed it.

Therein lies the true test of character.

Therein lies how big secrets can make small people.

All knowledge tests you. Secrets test you even more.

Knowledge, and secrets, take a strength of self to carry its weight.

The weight of responsibility of having the knowledge, the weight of freedom knowledge typically gives us … and the weight of character that knowledge either makes you bigger or makes you smaller.

Whew.

That is a lot of extra weight we have accepted by taking on these secrets.

And this is where I bring in good … as in good people doing good things … as in good versus almost good.

That sometimes very thin line can make a massive difference in life. That sometimes very thin line can decide whether your secret makes you bigger or smaller.

Look.

If you are clever enough, even if you embrace community, you can get away with a shitload of stuff. But cleverness does not eliminate the fact you gain a bigger secret burden with every action.

And you know what?

The “community” knows we struggle with this a individuals. In fact it has even created some ‘auxiliary precautions’ to help us avoid unnecessary secrets.

Huh?

This is James Madison’s Federalist Paper #51 or “if men were angels” argument:

===========

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

“For each person there is a sentence — a series of words — which has the power to destroy them.”

—

Philip K. Dick

=================================

“I would hurl words into this darkness and wait for an echo, and if an echo sounded, no matter how faintly, I would send other words to tell, to march, to fight, to create a sense of the hunger for life that gnaws in us all, to keep alive in our hearts a sense of the inexpressibly human.”

—

Richard Wright

====================

Well.

I have written about the power of words, the proper use of words and … well … the waste of good words a zillion times.

Nothing tears me out of my frame more than seeing and hearing someone abuse words.

That said.

I cannot tell everyone how often I am reminded that how you say something is possibly more important than what you say <at minimum I would suggest it is a symbiotic relationship in which the life of ‘what you say’ is in the hands of how you say it>. And ‘how you say it’ doesn’t just encompass context, tone, choice of actual words & phrasing but also internal speaker stuff – intent, purpose and, maybe the most important of all, belief in the words you are saying.

All this becomes incredibly important because when words are used in front of a receptive audience they can encourage marching, fighting and a sense of hunger for life that can gnaw at us all.

While I could write an entire book on what makes words tricky … today I will offer a couple of things:

Words given and words used

Yes.

Some words we choose on our own.

But more times than we may like to care … there are words that are given to us.

Huh?

It is easy to think about how there are speechwriters and how some people have to stand up and deliver someone else’s words … but this bleeds into everyday life. In business you can be sitting around a table and people parse out words and offer different ways of saying what you want to say. Parents suggest different words to their children and teachers do it day in and day out. Friends say “don’t say that” or “I wouldn’t say it that way” … in other words … we are given words to say all the frickin’ time.

Suffice it to say … not all words given to you are actually good words for you to use. Words have to match personal beliefs to be delivered effectively.

I was reminded of this the other day listening to Trump deliver a speech he obviously <a> had written for him and <b> didn’t agree with. Trump is incapable of keeping his thoughts to himself, or of cloaking his speech with words that could disguise his true thoughts.

Here is what I think I know from years of giving speeches and seeing people give speeches with regard to effective use of words and presenting words — intended thoughts versus underlying principles.

In general most people working together share some basic principles. These are the foundations for specific words. Therefore when given words to speak the shared principles kind of ground the tone and delivery so that they don’t sound painful or distasteful coming out of the speaker’s mouth – just maybe a little uncomfortable on occasion.

Without shared principles the words have no foundation … they are delivered hollow of anything. They are just empty words. And empty words sound … well … empty. They may be the actual right words to say but the wrong person is trying to say them – which hen strips them of any meaning.

Here is what I know about empty words — empty words are evil.

==

“And empty words are evil.”

—

Homer

<The Odyssey>

==

They have been uttered full of nothing … even though they possibly were crafted by a lot of something <passion, thought, insight, whatever>.

But as they eased out from between the lips of the deliverer they were stripped of anything meaningful and simply become platitudes.

I could argue that this insures inevitable invisibility <unless some listeners/pundits attempt to parse out each word as meaningful and full of some meaning & intent – where there actually was none of that>.

These words are not harmless because in their emptiness they have become a version of evil.

Evil in that they have not prompted any thought, any idea … any new passion. They are evil in that they have not inspired anything new … and everything old, or that which exists now, remains unchanged.

That’s what evil does … it fights change and thrives on inertia.

Those of us who give words should be incredibly careful, and smart, on who we give them to.

Just because a word is right it may not be right for that person.

The second.

Words can have a life of their own

Words are their own people with minds of their own. This means that they may not always remain a true reflection of the speaker’s thoughts. Once they leave the lips and they enter into the ether … well … they can be chameleons. They often take on the hues of the environment.

=========================

“Words are chameleons, which reflect the color of their environment.”

——

Learned Hand

==============================

Whew.

This makes choosing words even more difficult.

More difficult in that a word can mean several things at exactly the same time … what it means in your head, what it means as it leaves your lips, what it means as it floats thru the environment <slowly, or quickly, changing as it is bombarded with contextual environment> and what it means as it is heard.

What made me think of this was watching a Trump rally speech, a day after watching a scripted teleprompter speech, where I was reminded of the power of context. Context, and delivery, can strip a word of meaning or it can dress it in whatever clothes you would like.

For example … if I use the word ‘unity’ and, yet, it is used within an overall “us versus them” driven narrative it suggest not an overall unity but rather a unity of “us only.”

Huh.

One would think unity would be a word well used in almost any environment.

Unite. Blend. Coalesce. Combine. Fuse. Join. Merge.

These words refer to the bringing or coming together of several different elements to form a whole.

Out of many one.

E pluribus unim.

Unite actually comes for the Latin word ‘usus’ which means one.

Combine means to bring together in close union … more general in application than unite and does not emphasize as strongly the completeness of the process of coming together. In other words it just places things together but don’t guarantee the full integration.

Blend even more strongly than combine suggests a mingling of different elements. Unlike combine it specifically refers to the obscuring or harmonizing of various components.

Merge, like blend, suggest the loss of spate identity of ingredients, but does not imply the physical act of making or mingling together different elements.

Join is the broadest term of this group can mean to become part of to bring together or connect or to put together in close contact.

Fuse means to join by or as if by melting together – it also implies some aspect of ‘forcing or forging.’ Fuse in other contexts implies a solid lasting connection.

“I’m fucking King Midas in reverse here. Everything I touch turns to shit.”

Tony Soprano

===============

Regardless.

I imagine my real point is that words without their corners knocked off, or ground down, can be good words … and used for good.

They need to be shaped, protected and guided through the environment instead of being flippantly flung out assuming a basic stimulus – response world.

I clearly have a healthy respect for words. And I, frankly, have a healthy respect for the responsibility of words handed to someone.

Used well they can nudge the world.

Used hollowly they are evil.

Used poorly they are just wasted.

—————

“Words…

They’re innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they’re no good any more… I don’t think writers are sacred, but words are.

They deserve respect.

If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little or make a poem which children will speak for you when you’re dead.”

==

Tom Stoppard

——————-

I am not a speechwriter but I have been involved in, and seen, hundreds of presentations and speeches. I can say, unequivocally, the same word can nudge the world, be hollow or just be a waste of breath depending on who utters it.

You learn in business, fairly quickly, that just because a word is universally good <like love, or unity, or hope> it can quickly lose its ‘goodness’ depending on who delivers the word and how they deliver it.

You learn in business, fairly quickly, that while the audience matters you cannot ignore the deliverer of the words.

An angry speaker struggles to speak of love authentically.

A passionate speaker struggles to speak of mistakes authentically.

A storyteller speaker struggles to speak with the intent to inspire energy authentically.

You learn in business, fairly quickly, you use words, and give words, with ‘authentic delivery’ in mind. And, yes, that means that sometime you sacrifice some words despite the fact you know your audience yearns to hear that word.

You learn this, in business or in Life, or you will waste a shitload of words.

Anyway.

I would say this about anyone … but Trump is painful for me to listen to as he either misuses words or purposefully abuses words <or is given words that he abuses>.

But I can honestly say that I, a word guy, feel insulted when I am asked to imagine that Trump believes what he says whenever he is persuaded to sound like what he believes the president of the United States is supposed to sound like.

I have lots of gripes with President Trump but the fact he abuses words so shamelessly is a crime to me.

One would think getting started would be one of the easiest things in the world to do.

One would be wrong.

Oddly, in business, and Life I imagine, getting started is one of the more challenging things we encounter.

We hem.

We haw.

We wax poetically.

We gnash our teeth.

We plan.

We plan some more.

We play out a zillion ‘what of scenarios.’

We make assignments; discuss the assignments and who will do the assignments.

We discuss the assignments again.

We debate whether the right people are assigned to assignments.

We reassign assignments and assign milestones, checklists and a variety of “we do not have confidence in you so we will set up a labyrinth of reporting checks & balances for you so that you know we do not have confidence in you.”

We wait until the wind blows in the right direction <even though no one is sure what the wrong direction is – to blows in whatever direction it blows, doesn’t it?>.

And then maybe, just maybe, we get started.

We do all of this under the guise of insuring we get right whatever we start. Uhm. And we do this knowing full well, at least in business, the odds of something going wrong is near almost 100% on any given project.

I imagine a part of our hesitation to start is our ‘self’ trying to address the feeling of not being ‘expert enough’ right out of the starting blocks gate. That certainly holds a lot of people back from even trying because while you may not care about being the absolute best, or even being perfect, you don’t want to suck or look stupid <or, at minimum, we desire to limit our suckedness>.

Making a mistake is one thing.

Making a stupid mistake is another.

I wish business would more often view workflow as learning to ride a bike. Chances are you weren’t an expert your first try … crashing into shit, banging the crap out of yourself … but most times you persisted and not only figured it out but got pretty good at riding the frickin’ bike.

The problem is that business looks at those crashes and bumps & bruises as “mistakes” <despite the fact they happen all the time and to everyone>.

Yeah.

That is something a shitload of people don’t talk about a lot.

The fact that Businesses face failures and mistakes <of the system or process or of people> all the time.

Sometimes small, sometimes large … but all the time. Most mistakes stay under the radar and are relatively harmless. They are simply the cost of doing business … as humans.

However.

Far too often these failures come to the attention of some manager within the system and then THEY bring it to everyone’s attention. And therein lies the bigger business truth … discerning the type of error – exception or systematic.

That said. With regard to mistakes … business people tend to fall into one of two categories:

—

Those who see the exception as systemic <a reflection of an ongoing issue>

Those who see the exception as … well … an exception

—

I could argue that the difference between a good leader and a bad leader can be found by which category they fall into.

I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a business meeting watching people wring their hands and speculate on ‘why did this happen?” <that speculation is the business version of ‘misinformation’, in other words, ‘made up’ version of why things happened the way they did>.

But.

Once the misinformation is stripped away, the remaining question is, and always will be, how big is the mistake <not whether it was stupid or not or should it have been known or not>?

And therein lies the flaw in how business tends to view these exceptions <mistakes> in today’s business world.

We seek some absurd level of perfection and in doing so we shut down in dealing with an exception with the incredibly stupid intent to break <or revisit> a well-designed, well working system <or even a well-trained, highly capable employee> to eliminate a … well … a stupid mistake <although almost no one can truly discern the difference between a stupid mistake, a mistake or simply a failure of the system itself>.

How does this apply to getting started?

This translates into having our head on a swivel before we even start.

We look for trouble where there truly is none.

We find issues everywhere … even when it is simply a perception … or worse … a speculative ‘what if’ issue.

And, maybe the worst, in all of our speculative modeling and ‘what if scenarios’ we absurdly end up applying the wrong remedy <or sometimes an unnecessary remedy> against something that is … uhm … speculative for god’s sake.

Look.

If you do some research on what slows people from getting started you will find one word over and over again – fear. It is often used simplistically and … well … inappropriately. I imagine if I stretch my thinking I could suggest fear is at the root of hesitation but I kind of think it is just most of us just do not want to suck. We truly do want to get shit right. Therefore it would seem gale wind almost everyone faces at the starting gate is one thing – the unknown. And this unknown is multi-dimensional in that there is a forward unknown <you may not have done this exact assignment or task before>, there is the general unknown <each task lives contextually in a different environment therefore even if you have done something once before the new context will invariably mean you will face something new> and the unknown unknowns <the random shit that inevitably occurs in the business world>.

Shit.

After reading that I don’t know why anyone actually starts anything.

Shit.

After reading that I don’t know why anyone would ‘go full speed’ but rather aim for some mediocrity as it would appear to be a safer more conservative path.

Oh.

But here is where the unknown really hits you hard in business – accountability. In business, regardless of whether you encounter knowns or unknowns, you are accountable.

Shit.

Double shit.

In business most time <I think> getting started is so hard because … well … you are accountable once you start <albeit … you will also be accountable if you don’t start … it just seems a little less risky>.

Accountability is a sonuvabitch.

It is a sonuvabitch because even just one bad thing seems to create a crisis scenario.

And therein lies the biggest challenge.

Inevitable criticism occurs based on some perception of perfectionism <because the world around you almost absurdly always believe you should have foreseen the knowns AND unknowns>.

It is an unfortunate truth that people expect certain things … and often these ‘certain things’ are unrealistic.

Look.

I am all for striving for perfection with an eye toward the implementation of an idea.

But as with so many aspects of life, the key is striking a balance between opposing forces, each with its own set of pros and cons.

Too little perfectionism leads to a rapid but undesirable endpoint.

Too much perfectionism leads to analysis paralysis and no endpoint at all.

To be clear.

Perfection is shit. It is shit because things just happen in business.

All.

The.

Frickin’.

Time.

I say that because it sure would encourage more people to get started if we embraced the truth that not everything, and not every mistake, is a crisis.

And you know what? Even if you do face a crisis it has a familiar pattern.

You’re knocked off balance.

You learn.

You adapt.

Anyway.

The truth is that the wind, more often than not, blows in the wrong direction … even though … well … how can a wind blow in the wrong direction?

My point on that so many times we wait on getting started until the wind is blowing in the right direction and … well … it never will.

The wind just blows.

And we just need to get started.

I will admit. I have always been a “let’s just go do shit and figure shit out as we go”type business person assuming I was surrounded with enough good smart talented people that we ran little risk of not figuring shit out.

That said.

I didn’t always sprint out of the blocks … I was also willing to crawl. All I cared about was getting started. I wish we taught that attitude more often.

“The worst thing about falling to pieces is that humans can do it so quietly.”

–

inkskinned tumblr

===========================

“The loneliest moment in someone’s life is when they are watching their whole world fall apart, and all they can do is stare blankly.”

——

F. Scott Fitzgerald

==============

Well.

Stark.

That is what I felt when I put these two quotes together for the first time.

Starkly absent of cynicism, pessimism or optimism.

Just stark.

Stripped of any hues of Life.

That’s what I felt.

Shit.

I then sat back and said “whew, if I felt that … imagine how someone feels who actually writes these things.”

And maybe that is my point.

Most of us can only imagine how it feels.

Most of us, at our worst, get only a glimpse of this starkness.

And even then our stark is most likely not this stark.

Now … what I do know that humans can fall to pieces incredibly quietly.

I do know that starkness is difficult to express to someone who has never seen starkness.

I do know that there are most likely more people who, on the outside, are holding their shit together so well that most of us don’t even think to offer a ‘are you doing okay’ question.

I do know these are the people who so quietly are falling apart.

So here’s the deal.

Falling apart is falling apart. What I mean by that is everything, and I mean everything, that falls apart makes some sound. You just have to listen closely enough to hear it.

===============

No, now you’ve got me interested, I want to know

exactly what seems wrong to you, how something could

seem wrong to you. In what way do things get to be wrong?

——

John Ashbery

=====================

You have to listen closely for the sound one makes when they fall to pieces quietly.

For there is a sound.

It may be just a whisper of a sound. You may even confuse it for the rustle of falling leaves.

But.

Quietly or not … as the pieces fall apart they make a sound.

You just have to listen closely.

This gets even trickier. Let me go back to my ‘stark’ opening. If you have never truly experienced stark, it is difficult to see this kind of starkness.

Sure.

You may get a sense of ‘something wrong’ but far too often we skate along the superficial surface of ‘something wrong’ assuming lack of depth or “not any starker than we have ever seen” and … well … we miss the true starkness.

My point?

What may sound like the rustle of some dead leaves on the ground may actually be the sound of some starkness we cannot even imagine.

By the way … what differentiates humans from other species isn’t opposable thumbs or the size of our brains … but rather compassion and an interest in humans – interest as in doing better, being better and jut … well … a better life <and helping people be better if they are not>.

While, of course, we want it to be better for ourselves we don’t want it to suck for others. And we certainly don’t want anyone to have such a stark existence that their Life retains no color or, worse, no hope.

The difficulty in fulfilling this inner innate characteristic is the outer irate characteristic of Life. It is always angrily demanding you to focus on it … and not the other humans occupying Life.

Look.

I am not suggesting running around listening to everyone’s whispers looking to save everyone.

I would suggest that the two quotes I used reminded me that saving a human … just one … can sometimes be enough.

Just listen closely.

Humans can fall to pieces so quietly. And no human, even someone we really do not like much, deserves to have such a stark existence that … well … they can only stare blankly at a Life falling apart.

“Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess.

An ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.

Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform.

Man has the power to act as his own destroyer–and that is the way he has acted through most of history.”

―

Ayn Rand

==============

Ok.

Discussing business leadership is … well … interesting.

Its also <slightly> interesting I used an Ayn Rand quote to open a thought on business leadership.

Why?

Almost everything Rand espoused focused on the individual and self-interest … and leadership inherently focuses on the group and ‘making the tide rise higher for all … sometimes at the expense of a higher one.”

In addition … <simplistically> the central thesis of Rand’s philosophy is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive.

I am no going invest a lot of time on Rand’s thinking <of which I have mixed feelings about> but because I speak to many business leaders the balance of ‘business democracy, organizational culture, and business autocracy, i.e., someone has to make a decision at some point and organizational consensus is most likely not the most effective way to generate good decisions, I will spend a moment on Rand.

In my eyes, far too often, Americans tie the Rand philosophy of ‘supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest’ to a simplistic version of core American ideals: individual freedoms & hard work. The whole premise is based on the promise a better world is available if people can simply pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. That thought is usually followed by “this works because everyone is simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.”

Unfortunately what this ignores is a successful organization’s ultimate mission: “e pluribus unim” <out of many one>.

Unfortunately what this ignores is successful cultures typically exhibit a ‘twitch muscle’ which automatically makes 95% of people to find greater satisfaction in contributing to ‘the team’ rather than solely finding individual success.

All of this matters when discussing business leadership and leading organizations.

Now.

That said.

I come back to a key line in the opening quote: an ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct.

In a world in which we tend to want to oversimplify things far too often “business instincts” get stripped of any context or the rich & royal hues most typically associated with ‘good business instincts.’ We also strip leadership down to its barest and far too often suggest the importance of ‘’good business instincts’ as some superior skill <and instincts are not a skill but an attribute> inherent in good leadership.

I would suggest we would be much better off stripping leadership down to not one thing but rather discussing a backbone which makes leadership stand tall.

Look.

A shitload of people can lead.

An even larger shitload of people think they can lead.

And even smaller shitload of people can actually lead well.

And while there are a shitload of well written and thoughtful piece on business leadership characteristics I would suggest that all business leadership often comes down to your ‘backbone’ of actual skills with regard to three things: developing an effective vision, having a consistent business philosophy <business acumen> & instincts.

Many leaders have some skill in one of these three, some actually are good at two out of the three but the best leaders are good at all three <with some extraordinary skill at either the visionary or instincts>.

I point out the vision and instincts aspects because it is that ‘dance’ which … well … can make a business dance. Some people talk about strategy & tactics but this is a little different. This is kind of a step up from that.

This is kind of like being able to envision the 5 lane highway which leads to a destination you kind of envision and then actually have the instincts which enable you to instinctually shift lanes, shift speeds and avoid everyone else on the highway in the moments that matter.

Suffice it to say … working with someone who understands, and can manage to, vision and someone who has good instincts is fairly rare — and all three even rarer.

By the way, as I have written before … most people who vocally espouse the fact <belief> they have good instincts tend to have shitty instincts. In fact … I could generalize relatively safely by suggesting anyone who verbalizes they have good instincts … most likely, in reality, do not have good instincts <good instinctual leaders & decision makers tend to have the humility to have an innate sense to keep their mouths shut about any instinctual behavior and focus on verbalizing functional abilities to do shit in certain situations>.

Anyway.

Someone can actually be a pretty good leader and not be very good at all these things.

For example … one of my best bosses wasn’t particularly good at the vision aspect but had an incredibly strong sense of ‘right versus wrong’ with regard to business philosophy and excellent instincts which tended to permit a shitload of progress <if not particularly visionary progress>. I would note he was pretty good at hiring some people who were visionary and combined with what he was good at he had a nice ability <albeit sometimes a lite too pragmatic> to tighten some loose vision and … well … get shit done.

For example … one of my best bosses was an incredible visionary with an excellent ability to set everyone’s sights on the ‘horizon’ coupled with a strong business philosophy of “this is the kind of shit we will do and how we will conduct ourselves in doing it” he could get people focused and emotionally connected with what they had to do. However … his instincts were not so hot. I would note he had a nice ability to surround himself with people with good instincts <maybe not enough but some key people> which permitted him to pick out what to do from options resented by good instinctual managers rather than have to depend on his own instincts.

I imagine my point here is twofold <1> leaders who are good at all three of these things are not a dime a dozen and <2> the good leaders who are not good at all three of these things tend to recognize where they are a little weaker and are smart enough, and confident enough, to surround themselves with people who do have those skills.

I imagine the greater leadership philosophical point here is that good business leaders don’t really fight truth.

They see truth. Accept truth. And work within the parameters of truth.

==========================

“Stop opposing the truths.

The truth is truth no matter how you take it. It is not going to be changed for your inconvenience.”

―

Bikash Bhandari

==================

I point out truth because, of all things, leadership is reliant on a leader being able to see truth … and not just what they want to see.

I point out truth because, of all things, vision and instincts are driven more by truth, knowledge and ‘learning’, than by any nebulous “I have good instincts.’

I point out truth because, of all things, people actually have a natural inclination to work for the mutual benefit of an organization … they like to cooperate and collaborate … and truth has an incredible ability to bond together the largest most disparate organization as well as offer the initial burst of energy which pushes organizations forward out of trouble and toward something better when a leader actually makes a decision.

Be wary of the verbose ‘I am good at this’ leader because … well … as with anything else in Life & business … leaders have to be ‘good’ at a number of things not just some simplistic self-interest driven accolade.

“But I live elsewhere; it is only that the attraction of the human world is so immense, in an instant it can make one forget everything. Yet the attraction of my world too is strong.”

———-

Franz Kafka

============

So.

We talk a lot about the fact you cannot run away from things and far less about avoiding.

Yeah.

We talk about procrastination, which is a version of avoiding, but by avoiding I mean more along the lines of ‘ignoring’. Ignoring meant by that you see the world that you want to live in and conduct yourself in and go about ignoring the rest of the world doing your own thing. That is simply a different version of ignoring the real world. Simplistically you are assuming that the world & Life, in general, is indifferent to you therefore you will go unnoticed and just be able to do what you want to do <in a less unfettered way than if you actually remained engaged in the ‘other world’>.

Sounds good, doesn’t it?

I will say that avoiding some of the more undesirable aspects of Life & the world is pretty appealing. I would also suggest that avoiding some of the more undesirable aspects of Life & the world is pretty unrealistic.

There are a number of reasons but suffice it to say the overwhelming amount of information … even within the narrower walls of a business, is stunning. In the good old days even the worst of things worth avoiding <lies, conspiracies & implications> needed a little time to grow to some size that they became unavoidable. In today’s world those same things need seconds to gain some traction and minutes to grow to some size that they are unavoidable.

Today Google processes 61,000 search queries a second. That’s something like over 5 billion queries a day. This means information is everywhere … regardless whether it is good information or bad information.

Today 99% of all employees in business are online … and nearly 50% of the entire world is online <by 2020 more people are expected to have cell phones than running water>.

My point here is not about the challenges of being interconnected with so much information driven by technology but rather avoiding the world is just not a viable option <no matter how attractive it may seem>.

But please do not focus on technology. Technology is simply a means … without people technology is simply an unused ancient aqueduct. It is people which make avoiding impossible <technology just enables their ability to not be avoided more>.

My version of this is office politics. I hate office politics. Ok. Not just hate … I believe it is people wasting energy and all I want to do is to focus on getting the good shit done.

In a perfect world you can decide to avoid the real world of the office intrigue and just do what you believe is the right thing to do for the business and ‘do.’

It isn’t avoiding by ignoring it is more like avoiding by deciding to ride the parallel rail on a train track.

Unfortunately the business world, and the world in general, doesn’t work that way. No matter how much I may have wished to run on a parallel track it actually works more like an atom in which we all circle the business at some maddening speed in which you crisscross with even the shit you want to avoid.

This gets compounded in several ways … two of which would be:

Someone will always make what you are doing political even if it is not.

Office politics always contain people who play politics to meet their own ends. That is their means to do so. I believe these people can only see the world through the eyes of palace intrigue and political maneuvering therefore they filter everything done by everyone through a filter of “what do they have to gain by doing that.” That is their first filter level. Yeah. Eventually they may get to the more important “what does the business have to gain by doing that” but they almost always judge everything being done on a ‘who is a winner and loser’ scale

Someone will always find something nefarious in what you are doing.

I will not call this conspiracy thinking but, in general, a business culture more often than not breeds a sense that <a> everyone is out for themselves and <b> there is no such thing as a truly altruistic business motivation.

And while it would be naïve of me to suggest that avoiding those two thoughts as ‘stupid & untrue’ it is a little sad that those beliefs pretty much underlie every organization.

Please note, once again, the people aspect in everything I have noted. You may want to avoid things but you will find your destiny along the path you have chosen strewn with a shitload of people crossing your path … uninvited and many unwelcome.

I would suggest that Life is best lived by not ignoring shit and avoiding shit but rather stepping into the world an deal with it. Sometimes that may mean side stepping some of the shit you don’t want to deal with and sometimes that may mean bludgeoning your way over and through some of the shit you don’t want to deal with but if you do this you actually have some control over your own destiny. I say that because the problem with trying to maintain your Life on a parallel track, and knowing that inevitably it will be crossed by people & shit you had been purposefully avoiding, is that you will always be reacting to the bullshit rather than proactively facing it.

Look.

While you may not care about business or business politics my point is my point … you cannot avoid the world to conduct yourself in the ways & means you want to conduct yourself. You are stuck with the world, and in the world, whether you like it or not.

Oh.

The other thing you are stuck with is the fact whether you stay on the road engaged with the world or take another road to try and avoid it … well … you will meet your destiny.

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”

―

Leon C. Megginson

=============

“We’ll never survive!”

“Nonsense. You’re only saying that because no one ever has.”

―

The Princess Bride

==============

Ok.

Multiethnic People Forming Circle and Innovation Concept

Business can look a lot like war … well … at least the battles portion. That said … it seems like one could take some lessons from the military at the same time.

Today’s thought is about who you surround yourself with.

Business is rarely, let’s say maybe 90% of the time, not an individual effort but rather a team/group effort.

I dug around in notes I have jotted down and found a thought I had scribbled down, an almost verbatim thought from someone I respect, and consider a good friend, a Christian military veteran who received 12 decorations in 2 tours in Vietnam <including several Purple Hearts>:

“I am fairly sure I served with heathens, homosexuals and a number of others who my faith would consider sinners. I do know that being in the field highlights the flaws & sins of everyone which, in an odd way, brought us together as flawed Marines trying to survive. But, out there, there really was only one line, one distinction: those who were smart enough to help you stay alive and those who were stupid enough to get you killed. Nothing else mattered.”

The main thought?

“Smart enough to help you stay alive and stupid enough to get you killed.”

To be clear.

This doesn’t really mean someone intellectually or educated smart versus some less-than-intellectual “stupid’ person. This is about the ones who have the smarts & savviness to be alert to the things that need to be done, and can do them, to survive versus the ones who can be oblivious to the things that can kill you <and a shitload of faux intellectuals fall into the latter camp>.

That said.

That pretty much summarizes the business world.

Insert “idea” and … well … there you go … “smart enough to help your ideas stay alive and stupid enough to get your ideas killed.”

<I imagine I could also suggest the thought works for getting fired too>

The point is, in business, if you have any desire to do good things you know you will not be able to do it alone and you learn pretty quickly who you want around you … especially when bullets start flying.

You don’t care if they are black, white, yellow, green or any Crayola color you can think of.

You don’t care if they are gay, straight, lesbian, Furrie, zygote or a transgender.

You don’t care if they are Muslim, Jewish, atheist, pray to Zeus, Christian or Buddhist.

All you care about is surrounding yourself with those offering the highest likelihood of survival. You also care about insuring those around you represent the skills and savviness needed for survival.

Look.

Business certainly has aspects of battle and military strategy.

Especially so if you think about ideas and having winning ideas. The metaphor seems appropriate because good ideas, shit … even great ideas, do not “win the day” all on their own. 99% of the time they need to battle their way through a variety of well-placed and ill placed obstacles.

I think I was really lucky that I learned this lesson very early in my career.

I learned by watching others, who had good ideas, champion them alone seeking persona glory … and watching a good idea die.

I learned by championing what I thought were good ideas with the wrong people … and watching a good idea die.

I learned by watching others, who had a good idea and a good team, champion an idea and defend it, fight for it and see it stand at the end … alive & kicking.

My sense is that this learning affected how I hired people when I was a group leader. I wanted people who had ideas and who wanted to champion ideas and who was willing to set aside some personal glory for the sake of insuring the idea didn’t die.

Anyway.

I know many military people but have never been in the military.

I imagine when you are on the battlefield you are standing as close to the one who can shoot the straightest and will shoot when needed … regardless of whether they look like me or not.

I imagine when you are on the battlefield you are more likely to be saying to your fellow soldier … “stay away from Jack, he is one crazy motherfucker and is gonna get us killed” than worrying about whether some person has some quirk, or looks funny or lusts after Little Ponies when they go home at night.

I would suggest that survival, in general, has a nasty habit of eliminating distractions and having you focus on ‘who can do the job.”

I would suggest that if you care about ideas in business that survival of your ideas, in general, has a nasty habit of eliminating distractions and having you end up focusing on “who can do the job.”

I admit.

As a person I don’t get racism, I don’t get xenophobia, I don’t get discrimination, I don’t get any of that stuff. I just think anyone who gets caught up in all that is caught up in some bullshit. And bullshit has no place if you are interested in progress … let alone surviving.

I admit.

As a business person I don’t get racism, I don’t get xenophobia, I don’t get discrimination, I don’t get any of that stuff. I just think anyone who gets caught up in all that is caught up in some bullshit. And bullshit has no place if you are interested in the progress of your ideas … let alone the survival of your ideas.

I admit.

If you want to succeed in business … well … there really is only one line, one distinction: those who are smart enough to help you stay alive and those who are stupid enough to get you killed. Nothing else matters.

I almost called this “day <fill in the blank>of the shitshow” but I didn’t.

Look.

I am no genius but at the Trump 100 day mark I suggested the second 100 days would look a lot like the first 100 days <inconsistent, ineffective & incompetent> for several very sound, rational reasons. And as we close in on 200 days … well … I look like a genius. And … just to share my conclusion if you want to stop reading now … I envision the next 100 days just as hollow as the last 200 days for almost exactly the same reasons.

Until the main reason is solved <quality people in necessary staff positions> the lean, mean and obscenely incompetent current white house staff will remain incredibly competent at … well … doing nothing truly meaningful <but maintaining an appearance of disruptive thinkers>.

I will ignore the tweets … entertaining but absurd.

I will ignore the unnecessary hyperbole … entertaining and absurd.

I will ignore the rambling nonsensical monologues … not as entertaining and even more absurd.

I will ignore the bizarre foreign policy steps … entertaining to watch but absurdly dangerous in reality.

However … I will pay attention to leadership and results.

I have to assume despite the fact the President claims a finely tuned white house which has done more than any other resident since maybe FDR … this whole adventure has not been exactly how he planned it to go.

For someone who likes winning I am not so sure this kind of ‘winning’ is what he had in mind.

For someone who claims to be ‘the best negotiator’ <or at least better than anyone in government prior to him> I am not so sure this kind of ‘negotiating results’ or even public glimpses into his negotiating skills is what he had in mind.

For someone who claimed “I alone can fix it” I am not so sure this is the kind of ‘fixing’ he had in mind.

==============

“Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully or write poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.”

—

Donald Trump

==================

What has the administration done?

Well, yes, in the first 6 months some things truly have been done.

First, I will ignore the stock market. As every president prior to this absurd one recognized … the market has a mind of its own and, in general, ignores presidents <so attaching yourself to it and ts results is like pegging my success to some squirrel in my backyard>. But even with its general disregard for a President what the stock market has really learned is that Trump will not do as much as some had hoped for … and others feared. In the stock market’s mind this is called ‘clarity’ or certainty … and markets thrive when uncertainty diminishes <because then it is all about trends and not surprises>. Trump will not like to hear it but the central banks control the fate of stock markets more than he will ever want <so he should actually be cuddling up to central bank more>.

Second, I will ignore the Supreme Court Justice nomination because this was a “gimmee putt” for any Republican who stumbled their way into the oval office.

Just as I wouldn’t have credited Hillary this “win” was owned by whatever party won the white house not the individual in the white house.

Anyway.

The first 200 days.

Yes. Things done. I would call it “tinkering under the hood” stuff. Some executive orders, some cutting back on regulations, maybe taking some, what they would consider, unnecessary pieces out so the engine can run a little more effectively.

Most things have been ‘destruction’ type actions and not construction type actions.

And none of them are the bigger things which make radical shifts with regard to the country’s well-being.

Here is the problem with the Trump administration just tinkering under the hood. During the campaign and continuing into the first 200 days the administration, and Trump in particular, have claimed I have a Hyundai and I deserve a Ferrari.

Therefore, to date, they are just giving me a better running Hyundai and they still haven’t shown me <a> what my Ferrari is going to look like or <b> when I may expect to see my Ferrari in my driveway or even <c> what they are going to do to actually make it possible to have a Ferrari.

That alone makes for a fairly hollow first 200 days.

But why haven’t we received even those basic, what I would call, “map of things you should expect” stuff?

To date this administration has been defined by … well … a fog of dysfunction driven by a clammy inconsistent breeze called Donald J Trump which leaves us all feeling a little uneasy that something bad awaits us in the fucking clammy fog.

Look.

While I buy he is transactional … he is an inconsistent transactional person. He shows no sign of cohesive thinking, shows poor instincts and a complete lack of impulse control <which derails any necessary momentum every sane business leader knows you need to have to sustain any larger idea> and an extraordinarily immature naïve view of how the world really works <business, government and global> all buried in a pea like brain that does not envision what the end game looks like.

I score the last 200 days as relatively hollow and, once again, I see no signs of changes needed to get us out of hollow in and into substance.

I personally do not see him changing <becoming more engaged, take on more responsibility and try and lead rather than criticize> therefore the administration will live and die by the people who will end up in the administration <assuming they ever do join up>. Trump really has no policy – which is needed to lead without actually having to hold everyone’s hand — therefore he needs to <a> hire people who understand policy and can sell policy and <b> accumulate a group of policy makers who are aligned <not by loyalty but rather by ideology> so that the end puzzle gets built so it looks like a frickin’ puzzle and not just a bunch of random policies which look good in isolation but crappy when viewed together.

There needs to be a team, not a loyal team, but a qualified team for any chance to get out of this hollow hole we seem to get deeper and deeper into.

Yeah yeah yeah. Trumpeteers will come out of the woodwork and suggest “this is not Trump’s fault.”

They would be wrong.

I have been in so many companies that have told me to hire only to have my candidates get mired in the HR administrative mud for so long you are fairly sure they were just humoring you into believing you could actually hire someone that I can certainly feel the pain of hiring and open positions.

But this is not the case.

The congress has been slower in confirming Trump candidates but it is not because of democrats or congress inefficiency it is because Trump nominees are slow to complete paperwork or have to deal with conflict issues <they are often non-traditional appointees>. In addition the president has been even slower to send nominations to Congress.

The Trump administration is not eliminating the positions, Trump is just deciding not filling them <I assume he is not convinced they would actually provide value>.

Sure … there is a legitimate truth that government should be streamlined <positions eliminated> but not nominating needed people to implement your transactional ideology simply means … well … none of your frickin’ transactions get completed <and a business person of any competence whose career has been built off of transactions, and not vision, would know this>.

Anyway.

A couple things that become concerning beyond the staffing challenge as we move on to day 201 and beyond:

They market problems not solutions

I was foolish enough to subscribe to the White House Daily email. I will admit.

If I read it every day I would most likely slit my wrists. Every single email highlights a problem … disaster, failing, crime, horrible trade deals, being taken advantage of, the list goes on and on and on.

Shit.

In one email they actually suggested one of their own departments, The Congressional Budget Office, yeah … one of their OWN DEPARTMENTS … did not know how to do their job <… dude … they report to you …>.

They peddle problems and diminish people.

So far over 200 days they have invested 198 days <I made that number up> pounding us that we are living in a shithole created by shit-for-brains people … and, yet, they have offered us solutions worth a shit.

That’s not what leaders do … even transactional leaders. Even transactional leaders stand up and show us a list of the transactions we are aiming to get done. Some leaders <most in fact> would think of this as “how you should judge me” information.

This criticism is not about the 330 million citizens of the country <albeit we would benefit from knowing his> this is more about getting shit done in the next 100, 200 and 300 days. The people who have to do the work, do the policy, will be significantly more effective if you hand out a project list of shit I want to get done. if you have smart qualified people they will be like ants on sugar <all over it>.

I am not suggesting we need an administration that is in the “unicorns & rainbow” business but I do know the country would benefit if the administration would peddle solutions rather than problems but the administration itself would also benefit because … well … that is how good organizations actually get their employees to do good shit. It would be nice if they stopped thinking in terms of being in the destruction business and thought more about being in the construction business with regard to ideas & policies.

Without it … expect more empty ‘doom & gloom’ marketing of problems in the 100 days ahead.

Which leads me to …

Lack of vision

I hire managers to manage tactics … I hire leaders to share a vision. A transactional leader is a tactical leader.

And you can get away with that for a while but at some point the tactics need to fill some vision bucket <or they are simply scattered drops of water destined to dry up in the heat of time>.

Look.

I imagine the number one gripe against Obama was that he was too visionary and not tactical enough <in public>. But no one ever doubted his vision for America and Americans. People may have griped about some of the tactics but we always knew the ‘why’ of the tactical and transaction decisions. We bitched about ‘bad deals’ but understood why the deal was being pursued.

Without vision clarity 300 million plus people sit in their homes and go to work absent of really knowing “why.” Uhm. In the absence of why understanding everything begins to look random and people, in general, do not embrace random as a way of Life.

They need to address those 2 thing. Fast.

Those two things are going to haunt this presidency for 100’s of days unless they are addressed.

Those two things are basic Leadership 101 things.

I say that because while I am as detailed as possible with regard to how to fix the hollow presidency’s arc of behavior I remain concerned that the president, a self proclaimed successful business person, shows little signs he understands basic leadership behavior <and attitudes>. I admit … while I sensed his early on I never expected him to be this inept at basic leadership skills.

Being the president is not the same as the hollow branding crap Trump has built his riches off of. Shit. A real business leader demands more knowledge than that. Leadership requires discipline, hard work, focus, at least a basic understanding of the details they want their organization to move forward with and, as Trump himself said, a willingness to get everybody in a room and hammer out a deal.

That’s leadership.

Through the first 200 days of Trump’s presidency … uhm … he has exhibited none.

That is all on him.

After 200 days the president has managed to showcase a stunning total lack of ability to lead. And I use ‘stunning’ because he actually has a Congress completely under Republican control.

This stunning lack of leadership actually has repercussions beyond how people like I will measure 100 days to come. While we will offer ‘what was done’ report cards ad nausea the ultimate measurement , and battle, will be over character – not tangible wins & losses..

I am fairly sure in the bible <Corinthians ?> it says something like: Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

I state that because over the first 200 days there has been a stunning lack of truth coming from this White House which appears to be a blatant attempt to corrupt the character of good men & women.

I have a thought piece coming up on how the Trump administration is building an alternative universe in a way that I am fairly sure not many of us in a free world have ever seen before <but I am familiar with it having read dozens of books on communist Soviet Union>.

They have subverted Fake News from meaning actually unsourced, completely made-up things like the Enquirer to news they simply do not like.

Transparency means sharing information only when asked and not done in a forthcoming way.

They have attempted to make honesty irrelevant by investing gobs of energy undermining anything & everything everyone else says <if no one is honest than honesty is in the eyes of the beholder>.

They have continued to construct such a stark alternative universe to what actually exists by using scraps of truth, using a language of their own making & using cult-like recruitment tactics so that normal everyday schmucks like you & I are offered such a stark contrast it becomes difficult to bridge between what they say and what we see.

In the end.

I will restate exactly what I said at the end of the 1st 100 days … suffice it to say that I see some fairly concerning hollowness. What I mean by that is after 100 days one could highlight a variety of empty spots which … well … will dog the administration from day 101 forward.

And while I would like to point out some specifics I think we would all like to let me conclude with the “issue to be resolved in order to eliminate future hollowness.”

I am not sure at 71 if Trump can actually attain what he really needs to be successful over the ensuing 100 day increments as a president – enlightenment.

The mind once enlightened cannot again become dark.

–

Thomas Paine, A Letter Addressed to the Abbe Raynal on the Affairs of North America

Beyond all the bizarre tweets, inappropriate speeches and overall adolescent behavior … he is a painful amateur leader. Painful in that even I, who has led but not to this level, cringe almost every day at the amateur mistakes he makes as a leader.

This amateurishness is a disease stalking the hallways of the White House. I say that because while it is clear to everyone but trump why ‘no one listens to him or shows loyalty to him’ it is not clear why some very talented knowledgeable leaders surrounding him aren’t building at least a semblance of a construct from which leadership could grow.

Trump must be a powerful disease to have infected true talent that much.

There are a bunch of things that could turn this bizarre ship around but one, and only one, thing truly matters – will President Trump ever permit his mind to be enlightened. For that is the path out of the darkness that his administration tries to convince us we all live in as well as some of the darker more ignorant & naïve aspects of the current administration’s behavior.

Lastly.

I don’t care if you voted for Trump or not … you have to admit this whole situation is bizarre and he is a seemingly bizarre human being.

You may not agree with me that he is a fool but I cannot find one person who doesn’t think this whole presidency so far is just fucking bizarre.

“Ninety percent of paid work is time-wasting crap. The world gets by on the other ten.”

―

John Derbyshire

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

================

Well.

How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?

Now.

To be clear.

I am going to talk about this from a business-to-business perspective and not the corner of the bar-to-‘a job’ perspective. That because from the corner of the bar, after a couple of beers, any of us can do any job better than the person who is currently doing it.

This is an “I have been in the workplace, I feel like I have had some success and … well … shit … I can do that job” perspective.

OK … I am chuckling a little, c’mon, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.

Ok.

To be fair.

I have never lacked in business confidence. I do not believe there is a business problem that cannot be solved and I also believe <with some realistic pragmatic goggles on> that there is not a problem I cannot solve if I hunker down and get all the information I need. This can make me aggravating to work with on occasion because … well … I make no apologies for “how I may repair things”.

But that shouldn’t be confused with believing I can do any job.

Ok.

Yeah.

I admit.

I am certainly guilty at points in my career where I have certainly thought “I could do that job” over a wide array of responsibilities and unrelated industries.

Note. I rarely thought I could do it better … just that I could do it.

……….. my MBA at Wake Forest experience ………..

I would say that my MBA experience, a great experience with great professors at Wake Forest, encouraged me to think this way. It was a case study program which inherently encouraged thinking skills over black & white discipline skills.

I tend to believe a good MBA program insures you know enough about a specific discipline to be … well … dangerous if you overestimate your own knowledge but effective enough to be able to understand the discipline to apply it in a general management scope.

Now.

In general, I think this attitude, on the positive side, permits you to make the leaps you have to make to jump into new jobs, new responsibilities and new positions.

In general, I think this attitude, on the negative side, can make you overlook some skills other people have as well as … at its worst … can put you in positions in which you will fail in a spectacular fashion.

I imagine as someone gets promoted, as I did, every step up showed me that there was a shitload I didn’t know overall, as well as about the responsibilities of a specific job, but at the same time it also continuously reinforced that I could … well … “do that job.”

Success in business is a double edged sword.

Conversely.

………. what you know versus what you do not know ………

As someone gets promoted they also can see that some people got their jobs not because they necessarily had the experience or skills for the job but simply because they had the appearance they could do the job.

You watched as these people invested gobs of energy trying to “fake it until they actually make it” or, worse, they realized they were in over their heads and invested even more energy simply maintaining a facade of bullshit to hide their hollowness.

I would also note that given your experience on the last thing I just shared that also encourages someone to believe they could … well … “do that job.”

The higher I got and the broader my experiences, my sense of “I cannot really do that job” increased with regard toward … well … the jobs I really shouldn’t do. It didn’t diminish my sense of ability to handle increased responsibility it simply made me more reflective of other skill sets and the reality of certain jobs.

To be clear.

There is a certain group of people who never reach this realization … they tend to be either sociopaths or oblivious narcissists … but they do exist.

Anyway.

My real realization on this topic came when I reached a general management position <and did some consulting>.

It was there that I recognized jobs are like icebergs.

90% of a job you never see until you actually do the job. And to successfully do the part you don’t see needs a couple of things … beyond the obvious ‘I need to be competent with regard to the specific skill itself’ aspect:

Attitude alignment

This attitude goes way beyond the simplistic “I can do the job.”

This attitude is more with regard to what you are actually good at.

As I have stated before I am more a renovator than a builder. That is a mindset. My attitude is just put me in a room with all the puzzle pieces and I can rearrange them, maybe polish off a couple, maybe smooth out some edges that no longer fit well … and put a different puzzle together that works better than the one that exists.

And then there are people who say ‘I envision a puzzle and build the pieces.”

Those are two different attitudes that, certainly, have some overlap but also, certainly, drive a different type of style and ability to succeed in one type of job versus another type of job. I believe many people are successful in their jobs, and new jobs, because they have the proper insight into themselves and position themselves well to take advantage of this insight.

I would also add that a leader who can see within a person’s ‘skill set’ to recognize this attitude will also be the type who can hire incredibly effectively.

Not all leaders and hirers can. some simply see the façade and surface abilities and believe they are easily transferable and … well … hire them believing anyone can do the job if they have that appearance of a type of surface skill set.

The less-than-obvious skill set

… example of under the radar understanding (Juran Institute) …

Each skill, each specialty, has layers to its depth & breadth. Let’s say this is the “art” of the skill <I sometimes refer to it as “the shadow of your skill”>.

When you are a junior person you are demanded day in and day out to craft your pragmatic ‘non-artistic’ skills. You learn how to screw screws into holes efficiently and hammer nails into their proper places effectively.

As you gain seniority you are demanded to start incorporating the art aspects of your craft. I like to explain this as you have to learn to be more of an architect of your department, skill and specialty. By the way … not everyone can do his and not every department head is good at this and it tends to start filtering out those who move on to the next level … general management.

And if you move up even more into general management you are demanded to gain some skills in the “art” of combining all the skills into the overall progress of a company beyond the simplistic “are each department doing their fucking job.”

In general the biggest difference between thinking you can do a job and actually being able to do the job is your less than obvious skill set. For example … I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a conference room with a CFO who has displayed a skill set that … well … made me think “shit, this company is lucky to have them” not because they knew all the accounting mumbo jumbo but because they knew how to wield account skills in ways that the company benefited beyond accounting.

Pick your C-level title and I would say the same thing.

At the corner of the bar you have no clue whether you have this less than obvious skill set and if you actually have the experience you may only have a sense of whether this skill set exists. This is an intangible, however, 90% of the time this intangible arises from some relevant experience <maybe not within that specific discipline but a discipline nonetheless> … so your experience does matter.

So.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, we have a president who believes anyone can do any job and keeps hiring people who may be smart <and may not be … because I, frankly, question whether the President is smart> for positions they have no or little qualifications for that position.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, as a business guy I know you cannot do a job simply because you say “I can do that job” and that experience really does matter and that simply because you believe something … <sigh> … does not make it so.

I will say that I have learned this lesson the hard way and it permits me to be able to call a bullshitter a bullshitter and to be able to point out that some roles & responsibilities dictate at least some relevant experience in order to be effective & efficient.

Just because you think you can “do that job” does not mean you can actually “do that job.” It takes some self-awareness to know that.

The lack of self-awareness has a ripple effect.

In a bar your lack of self-awareness can create a range of responses – some chuckles, out right laughter of disbelief and maybe even some aggravation if it inches into what some of the people actually do sitting at the table.

In a business your lack of self-awareness can create … well … some real business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and … well … that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.

In business you get fired for that shit.

In a presidency your lack of self-awareness can create some real country repercussions – and we are seeing some of that lack of effectiveness now.

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?”

–

R.A. Salvatore

===========

“There is a trail of existence that follows everyone, threads of life that people spin out and leave behind wherever they go. Threads cross all the time. Threads cross and cross again – time and place if in no other way – even when the people appear unaware of each other. No one pays attention to others around them unless the overlap happens again. Sometimes, people miss each other only by a few seconds, yet they are connected.

Sometimes place is the reason for the overlap but time is not. Sometimes the overlap is purposeful other times happenstance.

The threads are there, no matter. Ah. When they glow, they are one destiny.”

–

Inspector O

========================

So.

In general, 95+% of us think the past was simpler … or … let’s say we think it was less tangled.

In general, 95+% of us view the present as complicated, complex and peppered with shit we never had to deal with in the past … in other words … a tangled mess.

Maybe we should vie it differently.

Maybe we should view us, the individual, as more complicated, more complex and more peppered with shit than we were in the past.

Maybe we have forgotten the past when we did what we felt was right versus wrong & what felt good and not bad without getting tangled up in a whole bunch of … well … things Life whispers and shouts into our ear.

Maybe it isn’t Life that is more complex … it is us … we are tangled up.

Now.

In my eyes … life has a nasty habit of getting us all tangled up.

I will not say “confuse us” it more likely just twists us pretzel-like between suggesting right things to do, wrong things to do, right ways to do, wrong ways to do and … well … what you are supposed to like versus what you actually do like.

All of this tangling makes us view the world as the villain <or the ‘tangler’ as it were>.

Wrong.

Stop for a second and admit that about maybe we are the ‘tangler.’

Why do I say that?

The world is what it is. We either respond to the world or we don’t.

We either accommodate the world or we don’t.

We do everything the world suggests or we don’t.

I say that because Life is indifferent to us. It chugs along in a fairly consistently inconsistent way in that it remains linear while everyone crisscrosses each other, all the experiences and moments crisscross, and good decisions and bad decisions made by everyone crisscross … meaning that all of that gets tangled up … in every moment.

The more people we meet … the more paths & branches crisscross … and cross again.

It becomes a tangled confusion of so many choices and paths and interlinked branches it becomes easy to think of it all as chaos.

Especially if you think of people and events as threads and not dots in a moment in time.

Yeah.

As your path crosses with others … others who are also making choices … choices of strangers, family, friends, enemies, whomever … their choices do affect our path. And then we walk in to this multidimensional space bombarded with molecules of other’s choices and contextual environment situational type stuff and … uhm … we have to make a choice.

And that is where we really get all tangled up.

While, yes, we have to make a shitload of ongoing choices … small and large and every size in between … the majority of them we make more difficult than we have to. this most often happens with good intentions in that we try and figure out the “best” choice <in the midst of all this chaos swirling around us> and we … well … overthink.

Then it gets worse.

We look to the past and it appears to be a neat set of choices made … and not made. It often appears in a nice schematic of context in which we simplistically made some choice based on what we saw and experienced.

Oh <nuts>.

The reality is that we made some choice in some situation which looked a shitload like what it does in the present <and what most likely looks like the future> … it appears to look a lot like sheer chaos — a snarled thread of paths and choices.

Oh <shit>.

We get all tangled up.

Okay.

Let me try and help.

In each tangled chaotic web of events, threads and paths … everything is actually bounded by the practical — the practical aspect of what you can actually do … and cannot do … within the choices you make.

This is the actual reality of what can be done.

This is simplicity.

This is the untangled you.

And if you actually untangle you will find some really good decisions and choices available for you. I am not suggesting it will make the repercussions black & white but … well … shit … I do not believe our Life, or destiny, is pre-ordained in a black & white definition anyway. I tend to believe Life is just a huge map of possibilities in which you kind of forge your way through a relatively chaotic Life by being the best tangled you.

Look.

I like … no … love the thought that we get tugged by duty <right thing to do> versus desire <some type of self-gratification … spanning from full indulgence to full altruism> as we make all these choices.

And while we certainly can be impacted by others or ‘things out of our control’ … what remains in our control, always, is the untangled choice.

The choice to do what we may with the circumstances at hand.

The choice remains with us.

The time, the moment, demands one thing … to tangle or untangle.

Choose to untangle yourself .. it will most likely make you better and simpler.

———————————–

Alvin Toffler thought:

Two apparently contrasting images of the future grip the popular imagination today. Most people to the extent that they bother to think about the future at all … assume the world they know will last indefinitely. They find it difficult to Imagine a truly different way of life for themselves, let alone a totally new civilization. Of course they recognize that things are changing. But they assume today’s changes will somehow pass them by and that nothing will shake the familiar economic framework and political structure. They confidently expect the future to continue the present.

This straight-line thinking comes in various packages. At one level it appears as an unexamined assumption lying behind the decisions of businessmen, teachers, parents, and politicians. At a more sophisticated level it comes dressed up hi statistics, computerized data, and forecasters jargon.

Either way it adds up to a vision of a future world that is essentially “more of the same.”